Dyslexia: The Silent Painting


The Dyslexia Painting

If you google Ranciere and Dyslexia, you won’t probably find anything (if you found anything, please send it for my dyslexic self :D). It seems like Ranciere doesn’t give a shit about my dyslexia. However, I can relate to his so-called work (he should be happy :P).

I have always been a ADHD kid and little I know about my flawed-learning abilities. I only knew I was dyslexia short time ago. I googled dyslexia to make sense of the senseless and basically I don’t fit in this ‘Pedagogical Society’. Written words are my enemy, they make no sense to me and this is why they hate me. Well, if we say the so-often used word (which I see ridiculous to be honest) ‘common sense’ is not so common. I have been made a recluse by what is a common sense.

As, Ranciere talked about Flaubert (this badass!), refuse to make his writings enslaved to what meaningful should look like. For most of the time, I have been told that I am detached from my own writings and I started recording what I think to put in to words (After all, my verbal ability and logic reasoning is 75% above the whole population- smart, huh?- however, I really don’t know what this means). For me, in the beginning it was sad and I even was scared to post my blogs. I felt like I don’t know how to please words and you know what, fuck it! I mean, I will celebrate my own unruly learning abilities and be proud of it. However, in the end I have to make any sort of alliance with words, because of my dissertation apparently.

So, was Flaubert Unrulisit Badass or an idiot? Well, to relate to my case, it seems like we are both to this systems are idiots (Smart idiots though). I mean I was told I have problems with capitalization and punctuation plus many other stuff (which you might notice, probably I won’t). However, I am not ignoring capitalization or over doing it, regardless of its systematic boring pragmatic importance. I sometimes capitalize the words out of love and sometimes out of complete feelings of boredom. However, this all happens subconsciously.

The Aesthetic of the ‘impasse’  to imply the entrapment in the world that can’t be altered and thus the normalization of this counter-system of pedagogy is for me an act of exclusion of myself, where there are no alternative and thus I am stuck -figuratively- in my own head (I am even crying, when I am writing this:P Fuck I have no place :D)

The aesthetic-zation of pedagogy is Fascist, the hegemonic learning self goes against creativity and the inclusion of any other type of production of knowledge. My knowledge is relatively irrelevant to this system whatsoever.

“the written word is like a silent painting that remains on its body the movements that animatight incarnate their power ” Says the Badass Ranciere

My dyslexia is a vivid painting, that make no sense to the silent painting. I didn’t intend to have unruly cool dyslexic self, but I do and its not going anywhere, it seems to me that my writings are negotiation of power and attempts for my end for validation and inclusion.

Thank you Ranciere and contemporary artists for trying to validate my existence in the written world

Much unruly love to you,



For Our Cyborg Selves



Unruly Students worshipping the ‘Sussex Eye’ The Tab May, 2016

“I mean, it can be for our good. You see I have a son and I think its for his safety” She says. I was sitting on the grass along with other colleagues planning for our unruly event and her words were not complying to the overall unspoken agreed perception of the issue. But, it make sense! Her words make absolute sense, although I was kind of estranged by her opinion, nevertheless, she can be right. I mean we are the Cyborgs Harraway talked about. We have consolidated identity that override anything else. It is delusional separation that we have consciously between technology and reality.

For the attractiveness of how unruliness can be, despite this her words voided my unruly thoughts. She is talking about how surveillance can protect her son. In other word, for me all can I see, is the hybridity of our cyborg selves. Her son’s body ontologically bound to the function of the camera. I might have thought the same if I had a son. Oh, wait, I am a woman, I can already consider this machine part of my living organism. We are not separable, my identity as an Egyptian mid-twenties female walking late at night, made me even more of a  luring union to the camera.

Our group project on the Sussex Eye in the library square, was so much fun. However, it made me contemplate how the Sussex Eye, which we consider (as in my group) a tool of surveillance, might be perceived by others. Is it really a tool to protect us or to control us? Harraway sees the cyborg as with deep operatively, even more than the ‘biopolitics’ analysis of the micro-practices of power.

I remember this time, when we were organizing a protest and we went on the streets and then some of our friends were arrested. We were all terrified, that his Facebook profile will be examined by the national security officers once they have his phone and all his belongings. His Facebook account has everything about him: his political opinions, his friends and many other things. We started reporting his account to get the account closed down. It felt like we were cutting part of him to save him. I mean, I found it weird to report my friend’s account on Facebook, in order to save him, because anything can be held against him.

However, it is so difficult to find this clear line between thy ‘myth’ and the ‘tool’, it feels like the myth is a tool rather than the tool is a myth. The cyborg recreate bodies and change social reality, it made the prohibit communicable, but it is inside us and no longer operating on us. The cyborg is ‘us’.

I couldn’t tell my colleague that it’s not true what she thinks of the camera. The Camera is not going to protect your son and I was as well not convinced that it will protect her son. But, I couldn’t tell her, while everyone was talking and telling the truth beneath the existence of the ‘Sussex Eye’, regardless, I couldn’t speak .


The Bare Life of the ‘Fragile Masculine’


To scare the ‘Fragile Masculinity’ a little bit 😛

It was one of the days in Ramdan- exactly like nowadays- we were sitting in our lounge, back at home and one of the non-ending tv commercials started playing, showing sissy young man and a voice saying “Be a man!, drink this XX”. The tv Com. ended with the guy’s voice  “This drink is for macho men, be a man!” I wasn’t a gender baby by this time (this is how we call ourselves in the GAD MA :D), but still I have been a feminist and couldn’t help it but laugh and feel how silly it is. Although, this is not a funny commercial (I really love funny tv commercials, they are my favorite XD), but still its the ugly truth of what does it mean to be a man. Then the memes and hashtags #fragilemasculinity started going viral to relate to this unfunny and silly tv commercial. What is fragile masculinity? Its mainly the ambitious of the neoliberal consumerism, aiming at making men consume products that has been labeled as feminine without feeling emasculated (like leggings, there is meggings for men now, lool <3).

Being the gender baby that I am, I  have to annoy everyone with this topic, after all, we should let the other MAs know about the importance of gender (scoffs).  Gender is performative- Judith butler would agree on that XD-  and it’s not a secret that there is hegemonic masculinity as well, which means in a simple way: the favorable form of masculinity, that men thrive to relate to in different realms of life. Hereafter, there is multiple forms of hegemonic masculinity, that can be performed in different spaces. Both, men and women can adopt this performance of masculinity (yes, its not only for men

Agamben and the bare life of the hegemonic masculinity

Butler (2009) mentions in her lecture on ‘Performativity, Precarity and Sexual Politics’ the precarious life that gender non-confirming people has to face. Well, we are made vulnerable by our gender performativity. In a sense that, the way we try to comply to these gender roles, leave us with compromised agency. Men are not only sacred of wearing meggings and the fear of looking like women. In my country, they fear being called gay, being gay, not being a capable breadwinner, not finding as job; because they are asked to be breadwinners and even not being good in bed. These are constant fears of not relating to these different patterns of hegemonic masculinity. Men have been made a Homo Sacer in diverse shapes. This is how Agamben referred to it “Process of Subjectivization” where our bodies are politicized and the sovereign is no longer the “body of the king’ it is in the micro-practices of life (Foucault), which Agamben define as ‘ operativeness of the sovereign’

”Man is not only a natural body, but also a body of the city, that is, of the so-called political part”. Nancy Lindefrane in her book ‘Masculinities Under Neoliberalism’ explains how there is no such a thing of the so-called oppressed femininities vs the superior masclunties. These patterns and cycles of neoliberal enslavement was made to sustain this bloody system. Its sad, that even though we think that we choose our sexuality, however, its not completely true. Our sex is gendered. We are performing the closed form of sexuality that would keep our gender roles sustained and thus keep a citizens and not made a bare life by the state, for the fear that we will be abandoned by the state . Even though, there are people who choose to be dissident citizens (Dasgupta), for our fear to be abandoned by the state and transformed to the bare life. Still we are negotiating power always over our bodies.

We have been made the Homo Sacer by our own gendered roles. I don’t know how this will go away…